Public Prosecutor v Govindasamy s/o Nallaiah

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Hoo Sheau Peng JC
• Judgment Date: 19 April 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGHC 71
• Plaintiff Counsel: Eugene Lee, Crystal Tan, and Koh Huimin (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Date: 16 February 2016
• Year: 2016
• Hearing Date: 11 November 2015,01 April 2016,16 February 2016,04 November 2015,27 October 2015,03 November 2015,22 October 2015,20 October 2015,23 October 2015,21 October 2015
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Culpable Homicide,Offences,Murder
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 51 of 2015
• Citation: [2016] SGHC 71
• Defendant Counsel: Thrumurgan s/o Ramapiram, Kalidass s/o Murugaiyan, A Sangeetha, Emmanuel Lee (Trident Law Corporation), and Amarick Singh Gill (Amarick Gill LLC)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 22 April 2016

Hoo Sheau Peng JC: Introduction

On the morning of 10 August 2011, a fire broke out at the premises of the law firm B Rengarajoo and Associates (“the office”), which was located at the sixth floor of the Afro-Asia Building along Robinson Road. The fire gutted the office, and led to the tragic death of Mdm Low Foong Meng (“Mdm Low”), who was the wife of Mr Rengarajoo s/o Rengasamy Belasamy (“Mr Rengarajoo”). It was common ground that the fire was started by the accused, Govindasamy s/o Nallaiah (“the Accused”), and that he had done so after he had assaulted Mdm Low and rendered her unconscious.

Subsequently, the Accused was charged with murder within the meaning of s 300(d) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”). The Accused claimed trial to the charge. Before this court, the issue was whether the Accused was guilty of murder, the most serious offence in our penal laws, or of a less serious form of homicide.

At the conclusion of the trial, I found that it had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused was guilty of murder. However, I concluded that the facts which were proved were sufficient to justify a conviction for the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s 299 of the Penal Code. Therefore, I exercised the power granted to me under s 141(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) to convict the Accused of the following lesser offence:

That you, [the Accused], on 10 August 2011, sometime between 9.48 am and 11.54 am, at unit #06-26 of No. 63 Robinson Road, Afro Asia Building, Singapore (“the unit”), did cause the death of one Low Foong Meng (female/55 years old) by starting a fire in the said unit with the knowledge that by such act you were likely to cause death, and you have thereby committed the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder which is punishable under s 304(b) of the Penal Code (Chapter 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

Thereafter, I sentenced the Accused to 10 years of imprisonment, backdated to 11 August 2011. This is the maximum term of imprisonment provided under s 304(b) of the Penal Code. The Accused was 71 years of age. Pursuant to s 325 of the CPC, he was not liable for caning. None was imposed. I now provide my detailed reasons for the conviction and sentence.

The Prosecution’s case

I begin with the Prosecution’s evidence. In total, there were 58 witnesses and 246 exhibits. Much of the evidence was not disputed.

Previous brush with the law

In 1965, the Accused joined the civil service. Sometime in 2002, he was investigated for corruption. The Accused engaged Mr Rengarajoo to act as his lawyer, and they agreed on a fee of $25,000. Mr Rengarajoo prepared a promissory note, which was duly signed by two of the Accused’s children, Ms Letchmi Ghandi d/o Govindasamy (“Ms Letchmi”) and Mr Ramanathan s/o Govindasamy (“Mr Ramanathan”), who each agreed to stand as guarantors for the legal fees owed by the Accused. Mr Rengarajoo represented the Accused at the trial. Eventually, the Accused was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Following this, the Accused was dismissed from the civil service, lost his pension, and began working as a taxi driver. He also sold his house at a loss, and was made a bankrupt.

Outstanding legal fees

The Accused did not pay his legal fees. Mr Rengarajoo commenced legal proceedings to recover the unpaid legal fees. In 2005, he obtained a default judgment against the Accused and his children. In 2010, Mr Rengarajoo began enforcement proceedings against the Accused’s children. In late 2010, he served a statutory demand on Ms Letchmi. In July 2011, he took out a writ of seizure and sale against Mr Ramanathan.

Mr Ramanathan visited Mr Rengarajoo at the office, and asked for time to settle the matter. He was not successful, and was told to return on 1 August 2011. Mr Ramanathan told the Accused what had transpired. The Accused said that he would see Mr Rengarajoo on his own.

On 1 August 2011, the Accused went to the office alone to remonstrate with Mr Rengarajoo, but received a similarly negative response. On that occasion, for the first time, the Accused saw Mdm Low, whom he thought was a lawyer and a partner in Mr Rengarajoo’s firm. Mdm Low informed the Accused not to waste any more time, and to arrange for payment to be made.

On 3 August 2011, Mr Ramanathan received another letter informing him that if payment were not made by 10 August 2011, the writ of seizure and sale against the property in his home would be enforced. On 8 August 2011, the Accused made another visit to Mr Rengarajoo’s office to negotiate an extension of time for payment of the legal fees. Once again, Mdm Low told him not to waste any more time, and to arrange for payment to be made.

Events on 10 August 2011

On 10 August 2011, the Accused parked his taxi in the vicinity of the Afro-Asia Building. As shown in the CCTV footages captured at the Afro-Asia Building, the Accused entered the building at 8.37am. He was carrying a haversack. The Accused told a security guard that he was there to see a lawyer. The Accused then made multiple calls to the office, finally speaking with Mdm Low and identifying himself as a potential client who wished to sell his house. By the time the Accused entered the office, it was 9.48am.

At about 9.50am, Mr Marco Jap (“Mr Jap”), a deliveryman, arrived at the office. As the door was unlocked, he entered the office and saw the Accused walking out from a cubicle at the far end. The Accused was holding a bicycle chain which was wrapped in a clear blue plastic sheath, at the end of which, a padlock was attached (“the chain and padlock”). Mr Jap did not see anyone else. Mr Jap informed the Accused that he was making a delivery. The Accused instructed him to wait outside for 10 minutes because “the lady is not here”. Mr Jap left the office, and closed the door. While he was waiting outside, Mr Jap heard three distinct “thud” sounds, “as if someone had used a hard object to hit against another object, like a table or chair”. Then, he detected a “strong smell” emanating from the office. After that, he “heard a female voice screaming loudly inside the office… two or three loud screams and after that it was all quiet.”

The smell became stronger, and Mr Jap noticed smoke coming out from the sides of the wooden door. Alarmed, he proceeded to get help. At 9.55am, Mr Jap exited the lift at the ground floor and informed a security guard of what he had seen. While this conversation was taking place, the Accused walked out of the building. By then, the fire alarm had gone off. Two security guards proceeded to the office, and saw smoke coming out of it. One of them opened the door of the office, and found it unlocked. He saw a fire inside but soon retreated and left the office because of the heat.

At about 10.10am, Mr Rengarajoo arrived at the Afro-Asia Building. He overheard security personnel talking about the office. Concerned, he proceeded to the office. The door was unlocked. He entered the office, but was unable to breathe normally due to the presence of smoke. He shouted for Mdm Low to leave the office, and he heard a single loud scream before she fell silent. The crowd outside the office urged him to leave. Perceiving that it was too dangerous for him to remain, he left. Officers from the Singapore Civil Defence Force (“SCDF”) soon attended at the scene and proceeded to put the fire out. The fire fighters found Mdm Low at the back of the office, within one of the cubicles in the office. She was pronounced dead at 11.54am.

Meanwhile, the Accused returned to his taxi and drove off. Subsequently, he disposed of the haversack, which contained, inter alia, the chain and padlock, and other personal effects into a canal. At 10.50pm that night, the Accused was arrested at his home. Following the arrest, the Accused brought the police to the shop where he had purchased the chain and padlock. A similar set was produced at the trial as an exhibit.

Plan of the office

To facilitate understanding of the events of 10 August 2011, I provide a description of the scene. The office was shaped as an “L”, with two separate sections. The first section (which was slightly longer) was an entranceway at the end of which was the door to a room used by Mr Rengarajoo. Immediately outside this door were two wooden tables, the second of which was referred to during the trial as “the secretary’s table”. This also marked the start of the second section of the office (the shorter arm of the “L”). In the middle of this second section was a photocopying machine, which was placed next to the pantry. There were two cubicles at the far end of the office. Mdm Low was found within one of those cubicles.

Assessment of the fire and analysis of samples

Major Koh Chee Hian (“Major Koh”) of the Fire Investigation Unit of the SCDF conducted an investigation into the fire and prepared a report. In the fire investigation report, he noted that the entire unit had sustained extensive fire damage, with the walls and ceiling of the unit displaying obvious signs of heat and smoke damage. He concluded that the fire had originated from a single point, being the area outside Mr Rengarajoo’s room, around where the secretary’s table was placed. He reached this conclusion because it was the area that sustained the greatest fire damage, as the partitions there had been completely consumed by the fire whereas those at the pantry, though charred, still stood. In his assessment, the fire had been started deliberately and the papers outside Mr Rengarajoo’s office may have served as the fuel for the fire.

Major Koh also testified that he did not find any “trailers”, which he explained were trails of ignitable liquid substances in the office. Four samples were also collected from the office. The first two samples were taken from the area around the secretary’s table, and the second...